javajaws said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Yesterday's thread was about how the gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and today's is how adulterers should be thrown in jail. I can't wait for tomorrow's thread about how a wife should be subservient to their husband.

---

Mine stopped making sammiches. Is that grounds for divorce or just a misdemeanor? I'm so confused now.

---

Try a few light beatings first before pulling out the divorce option. You want to do your due diligence and all.

titan said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Your assertion that promiscuity cannot be judge has not been proven. This is a logical fallacy that you were committing over and over again in this thread.

---

This is exactly what the left says all of the time constantly, everywhere. It's continuous on Social media and dating apps. Not only that, it's straight up glorified.

---

Wait, you read something on social media and all of a sudden that supposed to mean something as far as what the body politic of the left is supposed to think about sexual mores and morality? Do I have to respond to every dumbass on Twitter who says something stupid because they vote for candidates that I vote for?

Confession time. I once asked for prayers as a 16-year-old boy because I had lustful thoughts and was concerned for my immortal soul. That kind of sexual purity culture is toxic, and is rampant in evangelical Christianity. The idea that you should just go around sleeping with as many people as you want without any concern Is also toxic. If you if you want me to choose which one is more toxic I'll probably choose promiscuity is more harmful than believing that an interest in boobies is grounds for eternal torture.

---

You asked for prayers not to have lustful thoughts and you thought that was bad?

---

Yes, it is bad. We are biologically hardwired to notice women and be sexually interested. There's nothing shameful or evil about that, it's toxic guilt with the looming threat of eternal punishment for merely having the same biological urges that are shared by almost everyone on the planet. Making teenagers feel like there is something not just wrong with them, but actually evil that they must cast out is harmful.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm advocating for an all you can eat porn buffet, carte blanche to be an ogling creeper, or permission to sew wild oats. I just recognize human sexuality as perfectly normal and Christian attempts to shame it ipso facto are in fact toxic.

---

I don't know what Church you belong to, but my Church, the largest Christian denomination teaches that there's nothing shameful about having thoughts, but acting upon them or entertaining them is sinful.

Human sexuality is normal and is a gift from God, to be used in a proper manner. There's nothing wrong with a young man asking for prayers so he doesn't engage in masturbation of pornographic fantasy.

---

Yes, but none of that provided much guidance on a date when momentum developed and you had to so unnaturally throw on the breaks. And yet where from there. But these kind of things probably no longer occur -- society seems so hyper-sexualized that what Malibu is describing about the messaging can no longer be related to. But it used to be a factor.

---

Well a lot of that is good ole fashioned parenting. I applaud the church for teaching the religious side, but your parents need to integrate Church teaching into practical matters, my parents did that, I wish more parents did it. We have sculpted society to think of sex as transactional with horrendous consequences, the cure should not be to try to find ways to divorce the effect from the cause, but to stop them from causing the cause.

Quote:

---

Definitely shouldn't be talking to them about it until puberty, but the average age of first exposure to porn is 9 years old (4th grade). And we're not talking booby pics in a playboy. If your kids have friends with phones, you can basically guarantee their seeing some nasty crap, unless you have done a solid job or prepping them. Just a heads up.

---

That kind of proves prior statement -- this paradox and situation no longer occurs. Even the booby pics in a playboy or penthouse were closer to the Jr.High end of it rather than in grade school. And you are saying the really bad stuff is now before 6th/7th.

Silian Rail said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Your assertion that promiscuity cannot be judge has not been proven. This is a logical fallacy that you were committing over and over again in this thread.

---

This is exactly what the left says all of the time constantly, everywhere. It's continuous on Social media and dating apps. Not only that, it's straight up glorified.

---

Wait, you read something on social media and all of a sudden that supposed to mean something as far as what the body politic of the left is supposed to think about sexual mores and morality? Do I have to respond to every dumbass on Twitter who says something stupid because they vote for candidates that I vote for?

Confession time. I once asked for prayers as a 16-year-old boy because I had lustful thoughts and was concerned for my immortal soul. That kind of sexual purity culture is toxic, and is rampant in evangelical Christianity. The idea that you should just go around sleeping with as many people as you want without any concern Is also toxic. If you if you want me to choose which one is more toxic I'll probably choose promiscuity is more harmful than believing that an interest in boobies is grounds for eternal torture.

---

You asked for prayers not to have lustful thoughts and you thought that was bad?

---

Yes, it is bad. We are biologically hardwired to notice women and be sexually interested. There's nothing shameful or evil about that, it's toxic guilt with the looming threat of eternal punishment for merely having the same biological urges that are shared by almost everyone on the planet. Making teenagers feel like there is something not just wrong with them, but actually evil that they must cast out is harmful.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm advocating for an all you can eat porn buffet, carte blanche to be an ogling creeper, or permission to sew wild oats. I just recognize human sexuality as perfectly normal and Christian attempts to shame it ipso facto are in fact toxic.

---

I don't know what Church you belong to, but my Church, the largest Christian denomination teaches that there's nothing shameful about having thoughts, but acting upon them or entertaining them is sinful.

Human sexuality is normal and is a gift from God, to be used in a proper manner. There's nothing wrong with a young man asking for prayers so he doesn't engage in masturbation of pornographic fantasy.

---

I agree, it is actually harmful to a marriage to teach people that sexuality in general is shameful. For whatever reason a lot of Christians like to ignore the parts of the Bible that say you should enjoy sex and why it is important to a biblical marriage. Sex should be celebrated in a monogamous religious marriage. Obviously you shouldn't go around bragging or speaking about your sex life to others in public because it's clearly a private matter but it should never be a taboo topic. This is something many Christians got very wrong about abstinence teachings. They taught people sex was bad entirely and messed a whole bunch of kids up enough so that when they got married, they were incapable of having a normal and healthy sex life.

ColoradoMooseHerd said:

---

This is crazy talk. So I have to abide by your religious views? Are you okay with my religion making the rules?

---

Adultery is only bad in the eyes of the religious? What about murder? What about lying/fraud?

Pookers said:

---

javajaws said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Yesterday's thread was about how the gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and today's is how adulterers should be thrown in jail. I can't wait for tomorrow's thread about how a wife should be subservient to their husband.

---

Mine stopped making sammiches. Is that grounds for divorce or just a misdemeanor? I'm so confused now.

---

Try a few light beatings first before pulling out the divorce option. You want to do your due diligence and all.

---

That's a no go - she LIKES to get flogged!

Urban Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The OP is a perfect illustration of the insane hypocrisy of the Evangelical Right and their mindless following of a man that doesn't share any of their values.

---

I don't blame evangelicals at all for getting on the Trump Train. They have just as much validity in voting their self interests as anyone else.

But, and to your point, it drives me nuts when they hold Trump up as some kind of godly man. I mean look, I get it, you like his policies, so did I, but come on lol.

---

The only people who did this are those who were delusional Q posters.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

blakegrimez said:

---

And this is why we have a separation of church and state.

---

Except that we don't have that. Fire departments show up when a church is on fire. Police show up when a crime has been committed. Church buildings are still subject to some regulation. The so-called separation you speak of is a mythical political concept made up by people who want to keep church or faith-based matters (and people) out of government. But there's no constitutional authority for it.

The establishment clause of the first amendment never intended for an actual separation of church and state. The establishment clause itself is the actual constitutional authority, not a bad metaphor originally coined by a guy (Thomas Jefferson) who was in France when the constitution was drafted and who's opinion means nothing more than your's or mine on the issue.

---

"We haven't established a state religion. We just require you to follow follow these religious practices," isn't fooling anyone. As soon as you establish that a religious practice must be followed, you've established religion in all but name.

Then there's the problem of, "or the free exercise thereof." Meting out punishment for violation of religious tenets is a clear violation of that. The consequences of adultery in a religious marriage are up to the religion the marriage was consecrated by. If the religious punishment is saying three Hail Marys and doing the dishes for a week, then that's that. Government regulation through required punishment is an infringement of free exercise on its face by usurping religious authority over a religious institution.

Silian Rail said:

---

titan said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Your assertion that promiscuity cannot be judge has not been proven. This is a logical fallacy that you were committing over and over again in this thread.

---

This is exactly what the left says all of the time constantly, everywhere. It's continuous on Social media and dating apps. Not only that, it's straight up glorified.

---

Wait, you read something on social media and all of a sudden that supposed to mean something as far as what the body politic of the left is supposed to think about sexual mores and morality? Do I have to respond to every dumbass on Twitter who says something stupid because they vote for candidates that I vote for?

Confession time. I once asked for prayers as a 16-year-old boy because I had lustful thoughts and was concerned for my immortal soul. That kind of sexual purity culture is toxic, and is rampant in evangelical Christianity. The idea that you should just go around sleeping with as many people as you want without any concern Is also toxic. If you if you want me to choose which one is more toxic I'll probably choose promiscuity is more harmful than believing that an interest in boobies is grounds for eternal torture.

---

You asked for prayers not to have lustful thoughts and you thought that was bad?

---

Yes, it is bad. We are biologically hardwired to notice women and be sexually interested. There's nothing shameful or evil about that, it's toxic guilt with the looming threat of eternal punishment for merely having the same biological urges that are shared by almost everyone on the planet. Making teenagers feel like there is something not just wrong with them, but actually evil that they must cast out is harmful.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm advocating for an all you can eat porn buffet, carte blanche to be an ogling creeper, or permission to sew wild oats. I just recognize human sexuality as perfectly normal and Christian attempts to shame it ipso facto are in fact toxic.

---

I don't know what Church you belong to, but my Church, the largest Christian denomination teaches that there's nothing shameful about having thoughts, but acting upon them or entertaining them is sinful.

Human sexuality is normal and is a gift from God, to be used in a proper manner. There's nothing wrong with a young man asking for prayers so he doesn't engage in masturbation of pornographic fantasy.

---

Yes, but none of that provided much guidance on a date when momentum developed and you had to so unnaturally throw on the breaks. And yet where from there. But these kind of things probably no longer occur -- society seems so hyper-sexualized that what Malibu is describing about the messaging can no longer be related to. But it used to be a factor.

---

Well a lot of that is good ole fashioned parenting. I applaud the church for teaching the religious side, but your parents need to integrate Church teaching into practical matters, my parents did that, I wish more parents did it. We have sculpted society to think of sex as transactional with horrendous consequences, the cure should not be to try to find ways to divorce the effect from the cause, but to stop them from causing the cause.

---

Oh, no, they did all that perfectly. Its just the system didn't allow for kids that take things more literally as said rather than innuendo or `code'. When Malibu made his post, recognized that instantly. And as for college it took a little bit to realize it was like the paradox of `can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job'. And like that, it was resolved with the first job. But it is an area where I think the double-messaging caused a whole generation to just go off the tracks in rebellion. That's why it was interesting to see that that incoherent double-messaging itself might have been more recent.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I have wondered why those who do not practice Judaism or Christianity want to get married. It's like vegans wanting to eat food that looks and taste like meat but isn't meat.

---

Right?!?! It is SSOOOO crazy Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims can get married and have a party.

B-1 83 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation and it should be the only valid reason for divorce. I also think that you should not be allowed to marry at all unless you get a religious marriage. This would ensure all marriages are religious in nature and eliminate those who just want to get married for tax purposes.

if you don't have a religious marriage, why do you even care about faithfulness? You just have a civil union for tax purposes so who cares what your spouse does? Your marriage isn't valid in the eyes of the lord anyway.

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death. This topic has even been glorified in modern media and Hollywood and our politicians do it all of the time. It's an absolutely corruptive force that has no business in a civilized society.

---

Does this count as a "religious wedding", OP, or does it have to be your religion?
http://www.tzr.io/yarn-clip/09927de7-4613-4729-a148-c5854aba513e

---

I already mentioned other religions like Islam, I don't see why it would be limited to one single religion to claim religious marriage.

Do they get baptized and take communion too?

Silian Rail said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Criminalizing adultery can't be done even if there were no logistical problems. We are a free country. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. I suppose you can make the point that in the case of a married adulterer he or she is causing harm to the spouse, but that would be a civil damages matter, not criminal.

The prohibition on adultery is a religious tenet. People are free to follow the religion of their choice, and even us religious fanatics have the choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not. We can only be free to follow our religion if those who choose their secular religion are free to follow their own beliefs, including adultery.

---

The U.S had laws against adultery and fornication for most of the 20th century.

---

Had laws that were cool with slavery until the late 19th. What's your point?

I'm not so much saying it's not even relatable or nave, I don't think we should be morally permissive about promiscuity or hedonism. It doesn't matter if the mores of today are way over the line and need to be reined in, we shouldn't accept any movement towards harmful behavior just because everyone is doing it.

But also, preaching that masturbation should cause you to cast out your right eye, literally or figuratively, is an actually harmful and psychologically damaging idea. Self-shame over normal biological urges is not healthy.

Looked it back up. Average age is actually a hair under 11 years old. So you have until 5th grade, on average.

Quote:

---

Bill would have been in prison.

---

Yep and he was not running for president in 2016.

You could have rejoiced that Trump was in your adultery prison in 2016.

Donald J Trump in BAP's adultery prison.



Less government, more freedom.

TxTarpon said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I have wondered why those who do not practice Judaism or Christianity want to get married. It's like vegans wanting to eat food that looks and taste like meat but isn't meat.

---

Right?!?! It is SSOOOO crazy Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims can get married and have a party.

---

I've been to a Hindu wedding for a friend of mine. Interesting experience and fun, but it was still a religious wedding. I don't have any issue with these.

javajaws said:

---

Pookers said:

---

javajaws said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Yesterday's thread was about how the gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and today's is how adulterers should be thrown in jail. I can't wait for tomorrow's thread about how a wife should be subservient to their husband.

---

Mine stopped making sammiches. Is that grounds for divorce or just a misdemeanor? I'm so confused now.

---

Try a few light beatings first before pulling out the divorce option. You want to do your due diligence and all.

---

That's a no go - she LIKES to get flogged!

---

Keep your kinks to yourself please. This is a family place.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Do they get baptized and take communion too?

---

I don't know their practices.
And don't really care.

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Criminalizing adultery can't be done even if there were no logistical problems. We are a free country. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. I suppose you can make the point that in the case of a married adulterer he or she is causing harm to the spouse, but that would be a civil damages matter, not criminal.

The prohibition on adultery is a religious tenet. People are free to follow the religion of their choice, and even us religious fanatics have the choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not. We can only be free to follow our religion if those who choose their secular religion are free to follow their own beliefs, including adultery.

---

The U.S had laws against adultery and fornication for most of the 20th century.

---

Had laws that were cool with slavery until the late 19th. What's your point?

---

some laws are good and some laws are bad. The dude mentioned criminalizing adultery couldn't be done; I posted that it had been done, in this country, fairly recently.

Quote:

---

Definitely shouldn't be talking to them about it until puberty, but the average age of first exposure to porn is 9 years old (4th grade). And we're not talking booby pics in a playboy. If your kids have friends with phones, you can basically guarantee their seeing some nasty crap, unless you have done a solid job or prepping them. Just a heads up.

---

I wonder how a parent can block that out now? Like said in another post--that used to not be a threat till past junior high.

But more important, this is quite an image>

Quote:

---

Now a question: if they have met a wonderful person at 18, and they want to have sex, why not just get married? Only reason not to get married to this wonderful person is because they may not be all that wonderful. If they have integrity, treat you well, have the same values, know how to disagree and discuss rather than argue and fight, and have the same life goals, what are you waiting for? Get married! Have sex! Lots of it! It's awesome. Tax breaks start sooner.

---

One of the biggest barriers in the income expectation or costs. Fortunately, yes, our parents generation was completely oblivious to that. They got married when the guy still selling vacuum cleaners door to door, and similar stories.

Quote:

---

I may be wrong, but I do believe if every kid was trying to get married by 18-20 years old, they would be able to keep it in their pants, and they'd cut deadweight "project" boyfriend/girlfriends much faster. If you're 18 and the person you're dating still needs to grow up, cut them lose and let them waste someone else's time. Go find your spouse and go to town. Instead we have a culture of dating for many years as the norm, and people keep losers around for far too long.

---

That actually sounds like a society that would run well more often than not, and avoid the "prolonged childhood" phase and not breed a sense of entitlement. Probably avoids the European demographic crash better than the career emphasis and delayed marriage approach does.

Yukon has the problema with those.
Take it up with him.

So what's next, drownings for *****s and burkas for the rest? Seddle down Francis

HTownAg98 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Pookers said:

---

javajaws said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Yesterday's thread was about how the gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and today's is how adulterers should be thrown in jail. I can't wait for tomorrow's thread about how a wife should be subservient to their husband.

---

Mine stopped making sammiches. Is that grounds for divorce or just a misdemeanor? I'm so confused now.

---

Try a few light beatings first before pulling out the divorce option. You want to do your due diligence and all.

---

That's a no go - she LIKES to get flogged!

---

Keep your kinks to yourself please. This is a family place.

---

Since when?

Silian Rail said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Criminalizing adultery can't be done even if there were no logistical problems. We are a free country. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. I suppose you can make the point that in the case of a married adulterer he or she is causing harm to the spouse, but that would be a civil damages matter, not criminal.

The prohibition on adultery is a religious tenet. People are free to follow the religion of their choice, and even us religious fanatics have the choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not. We can only be free to follow our religion if those who choose their secular religion are free to follow their own beliefs, including adultery.

---

The U.S had laws against adultery and fornication for most of the 20th century.

---

Had laws that were cool with slavery until the late 19th. What's your point?

---

some laws are good and some laws are bad. The dude mentioned criminalizing adultery couldn't be done; I posted that it had been done, in this country, fairly recently.

---

And erased, fairly recently. If only "religious" unions are recognized, and there is a homosexual union in a church, are they criminals for "adultery" if that marriage is not recognized by your approved religion or do you recognize it?

Malibu2 said:

---

I'm not so much saying it's not even relatable or nave, I don't think we should be morally permissive about promiscuity or hedonism. It doesn't matter if the mores of today are way over the line and need to be reined in, we shouldn't accept any movement towards harmful behavior just because everyone is doing it.

But also, preaching that masturbation should cause you to cast out your right eye, literally or figuratively, is an actually harmful and psychologically damaging idea. Self-shame over normal biological urges is not healthy.

---

Masturbation is frowned upon because it is entirely self serving. Your sexual urges should be used in Congress with your spouse. The desire to get off is strong for a reason: so you'll have more sex. If we weren't telling kids to get married in their late 20s, it wouldn't be a huge issue.

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Criminalizing adultery can't be done even if there were no logistical problems. We are a free country. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. I suppose you can make the point that in the case of a married adulterer he or she is causing harm to the spouse, but that would be a civil damages matter, not criminal.

The prohibition on adultery is a religious tenet. People are free to follow the religion of their choice, and even us religious fanatics have the choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not. We can only be free to follow our religion if those who choose their secular religion are free to follow their own beliefs, including adultery.

---

The U.S had laws against adultery and fornication for most of the 20th century.

---

Had laws that were cool with slavery until the late 19th. What's your point?

---

some laws are good and some laws are bad. The dude mentioned criminalizing adultery couldn't be done; I posted that it had been done, in this country, fairly recently.

---

And erased, fairly recently. If only "religious" unions are recognized, and there is a homosexual union in a church, are they criminals for "adultery" if that marriage is not recognized by your approved religion or do you recognize it?

---

it's a moot point, if I can criminalize adultery why wouldn't we go back to where gay marriages were prohibited?

The Banned said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

I'm not so much saying it's not even relatable or nave, I don't think we should be morally permissive about promiscuity or hedonism. It doesn't matter if the mores of today are way over the line and need to be reined in, we shouldn't accept any movement towards harmful behavior just because everyone is doing it.

But also, preaching that masturbation should cause you to cast out your right eye, literally or figuratively, is an actually harmful and psychologically damaging idea. Self-shame over normal biological urges is not healthy.

---

Masturbation is frowned upon because it is entirely self serving. Your sexual urges should be used in Congress with your spouse. The desire to get off is strong for a reason: so you'll have more sex. If we weren't telling kids to get married in their late 20s, it wouldn't be a huge issue.

---

Huge theology of the body and humanae vitae energy

Nor do I. Like I side it's just something I've wondered and not something to enforce one way or another.

But marriage is an institution established and defined by God which is to manifest the relationship between Jesus and His followers.

So for non believers to participate In that is like vegans wanting to eat food that looks and taste like meat but isn't meat.

Ummm do you want to post the Monty Python video or should someone else?

Quote:

---

But marriage is an institution established and defined by God which is to manifest the relationship between Jesus and His followers.

---

Jews have Jesus as part of their wedding ceremony?
You have a link on that?
I might have been too drunk and missed it.

Silian Rail said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Criminalizing adultery can't be done even if there were no logistical problems. We are a free country. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. I suppose you can make the point that in the case of a married adulterer he or she is causing harm to the spouse, but that would be a civil damages matter, not criminal.

The prohibition on adultery is a religious tenet. People are free to follow the religion of their choice, and even us religious fanatics have the choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not. We can only be free to follow our religion if those who choose their secular religion are free to follow their own beliefs, including adultery.

---

The U.S had laws against adultery and fornication for most of the 20th century.

---

Had laws that were cool with slavery until the late 19th. What's your point?

---

some laws are good and some laws are bad. The dude mentioned criminalizing adultery couldn't be done; I posted that it had been done, in this country, fairly recently.

---

And erased, fairly recently. If only "religious" unions are recognized, and there is a homosexual union in a church, are they criminals for "adultery" if that marriage is not recognized by your approved religion or do you recognize it?

---

it's a moot point, if I can criminalize adultery why wouldn't we go back to where gay marriages were prohibited?

---

It's not adultery if they don't have sex until marriage.

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Criminalizing adultery can't be done even if there were no logistical problems. We are a free country. Two consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. I suppose you can make the point that in the case of a married adulterer he or she is causing harm to the spouse, but that would be a civil damages matter, not criminal.

The prohibition on adultery is a religious tenet. People are free to follow the religion of their choice, and even us religious fanatics have the choice to accept the Holy Spirit, or not. We can only be free to follow our religion if those who choose their secular religion are free to follow their own beliefs, including adultery.

---

The U.S had laws against adultery and fornication for most of the 20th century.

---

Had laws that were cool with slavery until the late 19th. What's your point?

---

some laws are good and some laws are bad. The dude mentioned criminalizing adultery couldn't be done; I posted that it had been done, in this country, fairly recently.

---

And erased, fairly recently. If only "religious" unions are recognized, and there is a homosexual union in a church, are they criminals for "adultery" if that marriage is not recognized by your approved religion or do you recognize it?

---

Adultery in this case means sleeping with someone who is not your spouse no matter the situation. If two gay men wanted to get married in some pagan religion then who am I to tell them no. What religion you are wouldn't matter, only that you are sleeping with someone who is not your spouse. If your religion views polygamy or polyamory as a good thing then I think that's where we can draw the line if only because those scenarios never work out. We also can't make laws based upon exceptions and in the US these would be a very small portion of society.

When I said religious marriage I meant religion in general. Obviously I would prefer it be Christian but freedom of religion is codified in the bill of rights and I don't have any issue with freedom of religion.

Pookers said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Pookers said:

---

javajaws said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Yesterday's thread was about how the gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and today's is how adulterers should be thrown in jail. I can't wait for tomorrow's thread about how a wife should be subservient to their husband.

---

Mine stopped making sammiches. Is that grounds for divorce or just a misdemeanor? I'm so confused now.

---

Try a few light beatings first before pulling out the divorce option. You want to do your due diligence and all.

---

That's a no go - she LIKES to get flogged!

---

Keep your kinks to yourself please. This is a family place.

---

Since when?

---

Since now...this thread is bringing about the far-right wing revolution on F16! Repent or be banned!

The Banned said:

---

Looked it back up. Average age is actually a hair under 11 years old. So you have until 5th grade, on average.

---

That's pretty appalling. But it is not in any way out of line with what we are seeing.

(Completely apart from Progressive attempts to force premature exposure to the most deviant aspects of the subject)